ios – Does an iPhone immediately download a visual voicemail as soon as it’s been received, or only when it’s chosen from the list of available messages?

When using a carrier that makes use of the Visual Voicemail service, upon receiving a voicemail does the iPhone immediately download the message to its internal storage – or is this only done when said message is explicitly chosen from within the “Voicemail” tab of the Phone app?

apache – truncated or oversized response headers received from daemon process, django

specs:

  • Ubuntu Linux 18.04.2
  • Python 3.6.9
  • Django==3.0.7
  • psycopg2==2.8.6
  • psycopg2-binary==2.8.6

Error from apache log:

(wsgi:error) (pid 8488) (client 117.223.83.31:51067) Truncated or oversized response headers received from daemon process 'wallpaper': /django/wallpaper/wallpaper/wsgi.py, referer: http://<server_IP>:8083/upload/

i am trying to upload this image ( .jpg 9600 x 5598 )

( same image works fine on local system )

The rest of the images works fine I have uploaded 100’s

How can digital signatures assure the sender their message has been correctly received?

PKI ensure that if the message reaches its destination it has not been altered (if signed with sender private key) and/or has not be compromissed (if crypted with recipient public key).

If the sender wants to make sure that the recipient has actually received the message, a higher level protocol must be used. For example the recipient could send a signature of the original (optionaly decrypted) message using their private key. So if the round trip:

A -> message signed with A private key -> B
A <- signature of the original message with B private key <- B

completes, then A can be sure that B has received the correct message.

If you do not set up that round trip, even with modern system where the sender can be sure that the message reaches the recipient system, you have no protection against the message being destroyed between its arrival on a machine and the moment when the human being named B could read it.

This would be more or less an implementation of what was the QSL in the early days of radio frequency message (mainly using Morse code). BTW that QSL was still in use in the 80’s to ensure that a message had been received and understood (*): until the sender had not received a QSL to message number xxx they periodically try to send it again or try a phone call to know whether the recipient system was off or out of use (at least at French Met Office).


(*) as QSL to message … had to be manually sent, it meant that somebody could read the message number and declared having understanded the full message.

transactions – After sweeping an address I’ve received a tiny amount on both the address I swept and the dest of the sweep

For some time now I’ve had a small amount sitting in a legacy address, and I finally decided to sweep it and send the amount less the fee to another address. I chose a small fee, to not spend more on the fee than on what was sent. The transaction got stuck, hovering around 20mb from the tip, neither getting evicted nor moved forward. So eventually I decided to try ViaBTC’s free accelerator. This is the only step I took that I’ve never done before, and that’s why I mention it. It worked well, and the next block they got included my transaction. However, just 30 minutes after it had been confirmed, I received an even smaller amount (3 digit Satoshi) to both the address I swept and the one I sent to. I don’t have a problem abandoning a three digit Satoshi amount, but I’m puzzled by this. It’s never happened to before, and the only thing I did differently was using the acceleration service. I have a hard time believing that they’d reward me for using a free service, but as I said, that’s the only thing I did differently. Do they really reward using the free service, or should I suspect some kind of foul play?

linux networking – Public IP address received when load-balanced on Kubernetes service

We have an issue with our load balancer service in Kubernetes. Here is our setup:

  • We have a custom build Kubernetes cluster with Calico.
  • All nodes have 2 interfaces. These are eth0 (public network) and enp7s0 (internal network). Calico is configured to use enp7s0.
  • The kubelets are setup with node-ip set to the internal network address.
  • We use a load balancer provided by our cloud provider which uses proxy protocol.
  • We have configured our ingress to trust the internal ip range (10.0.0.0/8) for getting the client ip from the proxy protocol (https://doc.traefik.io/traefik/routing/entrypoints/#proxyprotocol).

What we are seeing now is that sometimes when Traefik receives the request the source IP of the request is the public IP address of one of the nodes in the cluster. I think this is because the cloud load balancer sends it to the node and the it is forwarded by kube-proxy to another node. Because the public ip addresses are not in the whitelist of traffic, the client ip is not extracted.

I cannot really find where this problem occurs. When sending the request from a pod in the cluster to the service the IP address is always correct.

Any ideas on where to search?

logging – Need to make changes in logs received by SIEM

logging – Need to make changes in logs received by SIEM – Information Security Stack Exchange

transactions – My bitcoin hasn’t been received for good 10days now

I have sent my first Transaction from a bitcoin machine and waiting for it to arrive at another address but when i click on the Transaction ID of the addresses is Unspent? It only required 3 Confirmations but is now 115? Where is my bitcoin and how do i receive it?

15AwkRrfooSwFiegrVvMk8HaGwE8h83Kk1

linux – How to interpret received packages, although not being destination host

Being:

  • Victim: 192.168.0.2
  • Attacker (also having SSH server installed): 192.168.0.3
  • SSH server: 192.168.0.4

I perform a succesfull ARP Spoofing attack (being obviously the attackers MAC address):

victim shell shown

But when I try to connect via ssh user@192.168.0.4, instead of connecting to the attackers ssh server, it redirects the traffic to the real ssh server (or keeps waiting for this connection if
traffic redirect is disabled in attackers /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward file).

Is there any way I could interpret packages coming from an IP before redirecting to the original destination?

Thank you in advance.

Note: in case it’s relevant, im using dockers inside GNS3 inside a VM, those dockers being Ubuntu. This is the scheme:
enter image description here

Anyone who has received a payment from Hitcash.com ?????

I placed their ad yesterday, I saw it on Adswiki and anyone who has received a payment from Hitcash.com ?????

linux networking – Why are “Relayed” multicast packets are not received?

I wrote a test program to diagnose multicast routing problems.
The program has several modes of operation:

  • sender (send out a number of multicast packets)
  • receiver (receive a number of multicast packets)
  • requester (send a multicast packet, then time-wait for a response, repeat a number of times)
  • responder (receive a multicast packet, then send a response, repeat a number of times)
  • relay (like responder, but don’t respond to the sending address, but to the multicast address)

The “relay” mode was added most recently, and all the other modes work as expected, but “relay” does not (even though doing more or less the same as the other modes do):
The relay only receives it’s own responses, but the requester does not receive any response.

I compared a combination of (requester, responder) with (requester, relay) on the same host:

Requester 1

~/src/C/multicast> ./mc-tester -l 224.7.7.7/123 -d 224.7.7.7/1234 -m requester -c100 -v1
(1) verbosity = 1
(1) Sending 100 requests on 3...
(1) Sending "224.7.7.7/1234: v04 request #1/100" size 39 to 224.7.7.7/1234 on 3
(1) Receiving message #1 on 3...
(1) v04 received #1/1 from 172.20.16.35/60248 (TTL -1): "172.20.16.35/35949 v04: response #1/10 for #1"
(1) Sending "224.7.7.7/1234: v04 request #2/100" size 39 to 224.7.7.7/1234 on 3
(1) Receiving message #1 on 3...
(1) v04 received #1/2 from 172.20.16.35/60248 (TTL -1): "172.20.16.35/35949 v04: response #2/10 for #2"
(1) Sending "224.7.7.7/1234: v04 request #3/100" size 39 to 224.7.7.7/1234 on 3
(1) Receiving message #1 on 3...
(1) v04 received #1/3 from 172.20.16.35/60248 (TTL -1): "172.20.16.35/35949 v04: response #3/10 for #3"
^C

(“TTL -1) means the received TTL is unknown)

Responder 1

~windl/src/C/multicast/mc-tester -v3 -l 224.7.7.7/1234 -m responder -d 224.7.7.7/1234 -c10
(1) verbosity = 3
(2) /home/windl/src/C/multicast/mc-tester: 224.7.7.7/1234 -> 224.7.7.7/1234 (16)
(1) op_mode = 3
(2) /home/windl/src/C/multicast/mc-tester: 224.7.7.7/1234 -> 224.7.7.7/1234 (16)
(1) msg_count = 10
(2) socket(PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0)...
(2) setsockopt(3, SO_REUSEADDR, 1)...
(2) socket(PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0)...
(2) setsockopt(4, SO_REUSEADDR, 0)...
(2) bind(3, 224.7.7.7/1234)...
(2) recv_socket: getsockname(3) returned 224.7.7.7/1234
(2) setsockopt(3, IP_MULTICAST_LOOP, 0)...
(2) setsockopt(3, IP_RECVTTL, 1)...
(2) setsockopt(3, IP_ADD_MEMBERSHIP, 224.7.7.7/1234)...
(2) setsockopt(4, IP_MULTICAST_TTL, 3)...
(1) Receiving 10 messages on 3...
(1) v04 received #1/10 from 172.20.16.35/35949 (TTL 3): "224.7.7.7/1234: v04 request #1/100"
(1) Sending "172.20.16.35/35949 v04: response #1/10 for #1" size 50 to 172.20.16.35/35949 on 4
(1) v04 received #2/10 from 172.20.16.35/35949 (TTL 3): "224.7.7.7/1234: v04 request #2/100"
(1) Sending "172.20.16.35/35949 v04: response #2/10 for #2" size 50 to 172.20.16.35/35949 on 4
(1) v04 received #3/10 from 172.20.16.35/35949 (TTL 3): "224.7.7.7/1234: v04 request #3/100"
(1) Sending "172.20.16.35/35949 v04: response #3/10 for #3" size 50 to 172.20.16.35/35949 on 4
^C

So that combination worked as expected.
Now the combination that did not:

Requester 2

/src/C/multicast> ./mc-tester -l 224.7.7.7/123 -d 224.7.7.7/1234 -m requester -c100 -v1
(1) verbosity = 1
(1) Sending 100 requests on 3...
(1) Sending "224.7.7.7/1234: v04 request #1/100" size 39 to 224.7.7.7/1234 on 3
select timed out
(1) Sending "224.7.7.7/1234: v04 request #2/100" size 39 to 224.7.7.7/1234 on 3
select timed out
(1) Sending "224.7.7.7/1234: v04 request #3/100" size 39 to 224.7.7.7/1234 on 3
^C

(“select timed out” refers to receiving, not sending)

Relay

~windl/src/C/multicast/mc-tester -v3 -l 224.7.7.7/1234 -m relay -d 224.7.7.7/1234 -c10
(1) verbosity = 3
(2) /home/windl/src/C/multicast/mc-tester: 224.7.7.7/1234 -> 224.7.7.7/1234 (16)
(1) op_mode = 4
(2) /home/windl/src/C/multicast/mc-tester: 224.7.7.7/1234 -> 224.7.7.7/1234 (16)
(1) msg_count = 10
(2) socket(PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0)...
(2) setsockopt(3, SO_REUSEADDR, 0)...
(2) socket(PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0)...
(2) setsockopt(4, SO_REUSEADDR, 1)...
(2) bind(3, 224.7.7.7/1234)...
(2) recv_socket: getsockname(3) returned 224.7.7.7/1234
(2) setsockopt(3, IP_MULTICAST_LOOP, 0)...
(2) setsockopt(3, IP_RECVTTL, 1)...
(2) setsockopt(3, IP_ADD_MEMBERSHIP, 224.7.7.7/1234)...
(2) setsockopt(4, IP_MULTICAST_TTL, 3)...
(2) setsockopt(4, IP_ADD_MEMBERSHIP, 224.7.7.7/1234)...
(1) Relaying 10 messages on 3...
(1) v04 received #1/10 from 172.20.16.35/33488 (TTL 3): "224.7.7.7/1234: v04 request #1/100"
(1) Sending "224.7.7.7/1234 v04: relay #1/10 for #1" size 43 to 224.7.7.7/1234 on 4
(1) v04 received #2/10 from 172.20.16.35/44217 (TTL 3): "224.7.7.7/1234 v04: relay #1/10 for #1"
(1) Sending "224.7.7.7/1234 v04: relay #2/10 for #1" size 43 to 224.7.7.7/1234 on 4
(1) v04 received #3/10 from 172.20.16.35/44217 (TTL 3): "224.7.7.7/1234 v04: relay #2/10 for #1"
(1) Sending "224.7.7.7/1234 v04: relay #3/10 for #2" size 43 to 224.7.7.7/1234 on 4
(1) v04 received #4/10 from 172.20.16.35/44217 (TTL 3): "224.7.7.7/1234 v04: relay #3/10 for #2"
(1) Sending "224.7.7.7/1234 v04: relay #4/10 for #3" size 43 to 224.7.7.7/1234 on 4

(1) v04 received #9/10 from 172.20.16.35/44217 (TTL 3): "224.7.7.7/1234 v04: relay #8/10 for #7"
(1) Sending "224.7.7.7/1234 v04: relay #9/10 for #8" size 43 to 224.7.7.7/1234 on 4
(1) v04 received #10/10 from 172.20.16.35/44217 (TTL 3): "224.7.7.7/1234 v04: relay #9/10 for #8"
(1) Sending "224.7.7.7/1234 v04: relay #10/10 for #9" size 44 to 224.7.7.7/1234 on 4
(1) Received 10 messages
(2) setsockopt(3, IP_DROP_MEMBERSHIP)...
(2) setsockopt(4, IP_DROP_MEMBERSHIP)...
(2) close(4)...
(2) close(3)...

So the messages in the relay are looping locally.
The test was done with Linux (SLES12 SP4).

I decided not to lengthen the question with the C source of the program, but when requested I can present the relevant parts or an ltrace/strace of the relay.

DreamProxies - Cheapest USA Elite Private Proxies 100 Private Proxies 200 Private Proxies 400 Private Proxies 1000 Private Proxies 2000 Private Proxies ExtraProxies.com - Buy Cheap Private Proxies Buy 50 Private Proxies Buy 100 Private Proxies Buy 200 Private Proxies Buy 500 Private Proxies Buy 1000 Private Proxies Buy 2000 Private Proxies ProxiesLive Proxies-free.com New Proxy Lists Every Day Proxies123